09.12.2012 Views

January 2002 - July 2006 - The Jerry Quarry Foundation

January 2002 - July 2006 - The Jerry Quarry Foundation

January 2002 - July 2006 - The Jerry Quarry Foundation

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

a negligent corner for allowing him to be knocked down six times in than two<br />

rounds against Foreman. That fight should have been stopped after the second<br />

knock down. If that had happened, then everyone would say, "oh, Joe just got<br />

caught early and he never recovered," like Shavers did against <strong>Quarry</strong>, but the<br />

image of Joe going down so many more times is etched in a lot of people's<br />

memories and it takes away from a likely earlier perception that Joe was<br />

devastating before the Foreman fight, which he was. At his best, Frazier was<br />

brutally devastating, even for a brutal sport. He was just relentless. |<br />

|2/22/05 10:21:04 AM|Angelo|Washington, DC||funktron@yahoo.com||||10|Kent:<br />

That's a fair point about the image of Frazier going down six times against<br />

Foreman--- being burned into our minds. I will say that it seemed as though<br />

Shavers took a lot more punches from <strong>Quarry</strong> before going down, then took a lot<br />

more and finished on his feet. Some of Foreman's knockdowns seemed to be scored<br />

with one big punch, or a couple big punches that had Frazier sailing down face<br />

first. Foreman was a devestating puncher and his show against Norton was every<br />

bit as impressive, even though there weren't six knockdowns. But I still<br />

disagree with the quality of Frazier's opponents being appropriate. Sure,<br />

Bugner was good. But wasn't he still a safer play (for FRAZIER'S STYLE) than<br />

someone like Lyle? |<br />

|2/22/05 10:23:46 AM|Kent|same||same||||10|It wasn't that Frazier was<br />

unapproachable by Shavers. It was Shavers wasn't deserving of fighting whoever<br />

was higher rated that would give him a shot at the title because of losses to<br />

<strong>Quarry</strong> and the immortal Stallings, and a draw with Young in a return match. He<br />

had slipped in the rankings after his good showing earlier in 1973 when he had<br />

knocked out both Ellis and Young, which earned him the right to fight <strong>Quarry</strong>,<br />

who had beaten Lyle earlier in the year. <strong>The</strong> two highest rated fighters, <strong>Quarry</strong><br />

and Frazier, then met to decide who would get a title shot and Frazier won that<br />

fight.Someone here says Frazier beat <strong>Quarry</strong> easily twice. But this<br />

isn't true as anyone who has seen the first Frazier/<strong>Quarry</strong> fight would know. It<br />

was a gruelling match and Frazier wore <strong>Quarry</strong> down in a slugfest over seven<br />

rounds. It was because it was a difficult fight in their first meeting and that<br />

<strong>Quarry</strong> was on a roll going into Frazier/<strong>Quarry</strong> 2 after winning six in row,<br />

including the Lyle and Shavers fights that people thought it was Joe who was<br />

ready to be taken but it turned out to be the other way around as <strong>Quarry</strong> didn't<br />

show much and Joe had an easier time of it the second time out. <strong>The</strong> point is<br />

nobody thought Joe had taken the easy way out going into Frazier/<strong>Quarry</strong> 2. |<br />

|2/22/05 10:34:13 AM|Kent|Yucca Flats, USA||too lazy to write it||||10|I always<br />

seem to think of things to say after i have just posted. I have to<br />

point out that nobody ever thought fighting <strong>Jerry</strong> <strong>Quarry</strong> would ever be an easy<br />

task. For some reason, <strong>Jerry</strong> just didn't have it anymore by the time of<br />

Frazier/<strong>Quarry</strong> 2 and he should have retired after this fight. It doesn't take<br />

way from Frazier's victory though as Joe seemed rejuvenated and he fought like<br />

he had fought in his prime.|<br />

|2/22/05 11:48:38 AM|Massimo |Roma||4||||10|Kent, do you understand why Frazier<br />

fought Bob Foster ? I just can't, he wasn't in the top ten. Maybe his management<br />

got the wrong Foster, maybethey meant Mac Foster. Try asking your 6'9"<br />

friend in Boston, maybe he knows ! I know that Mac Foster lost to <strong>Quarry</strong> in June<br />

1970, but he still was way more dangerous than Bob Foster and much higher in the<br />

rankings. Mac Foster was big, had one hell of a right hand, had long arms and<br />

was very powerful. He was a little bit slow, but still an excellent<br />

heavyweight.|<br />

|2/22/05 12:35:37 PM|Massimo |Roma||4||||10|Kent-Yucca Flats, legendary<br />

! How far is it from the Staples Center ? And from Santa Monica ?|<br />

|2/22/05 12:58:11 PM|Fan|USA||yes||||10| I am no Frazier groupie. Just took a<br />

critical look at the record of "<strong>The</strong> Greatest" and concluded that the moniker,<br />

accepted by many, is a undeserved (and ruffled a few feathers in the<br />

process). By the way, does anyone recall how close <strong>Jerry</strong> came to a third

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!